This interpretation does not make sense to me yet. First, the details of the agreement must be written down as a joint effort of both parties. To begin with, the contractor knows exactly what work he wants to preform. How can the subcontractor know the details of those requirements? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?
The subcontractor adds his inputs to the agreement to educate the contractor about the work to be performed once the subcontractor understands what is to be done. The key to subcontracting is to keep the contractor happy. In fact, the subcontractor spends time and money for years to lock in the contractor. After this lock in, the subcontractor begins to make money. How can the subcontractor know if the needs of the contractor are met? In detail, how did Jed know that the needs of DGT were met? Did Jed care if the needs of DGT were met? Was Jed concerned if DGT was happy with his work? Oftentimes, a contractor will require that the subcontractor perform additional work to make the contractor happy. Did DGT require Jed to perform additional work to meet the expectations of DGT? Did Jed refuse? Oftentimes, the contractor deems the subcontractor as incapable of preforming the required work after the deal has been signed. Is this what happen to Jed? This give and take happens in business every day in the quest to keep the customer happy. The subcontractor must do his best to make the contractor happy if they are to do business on a long term basis. The subcontractor should allocate time and money to keeping the contractor happy. For sure, going to court to settle a dispute about the happiness of the customer does not lead to a happy working relationship between these two parties. Going to court is not good business. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil wrote: > > >>..A contractor tells a subcontractor what the terms of getting paid are > in a specification that is agreed upon by both parties. If the > subcontractor fails to meet that specification in the opinion of the > contractor, then the subcontractor is not paid for the subpar work. > > Actually you have it backwards,Axil, at least under contract law in the > United States. Contracts are to be interpreted by the person that did NOT > write the contract. In a court of law, the subcontractor's opinion would > hold up, provided he is telling the truth about his understanding at the > time of the contract negotiation. This of course will be decided by a > judge or a jury. > > It's often wise for a contractor to have the sub write the specifications > and then to comment in way of clarification on parts of the contract that > the contractor thinks are vague. This is important when it comes to design > drawings where tolerances are important and material specifications can be > too loose. Agreed upon independent testing is often warranted. Thus, > independent third party inspectors or contract completion persons are > important to assure a good outcome. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 08, 2014 8:20 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan book : An Impossible Invention > > A contractor tells a subcontractor what the terms of getting paid are in > a specification that is agreed upon by both parties. If the subcontractor > fails to meet that specification in the opinion of the contractor, then the > subcontractor is not paid for the subpar work. > > > > Was your work for DGT up to its specification? Obviously, it was not in > the opinion of DGT. > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is really funny seeing people calling DGT presentation amateur >>> while being completely oblivious to the complete incompetence of Rossi's >>> presentation! >>> >> >> No one I know has said Rossi does good presentations. >> >> The two are unrelated. The fact that Rossi does bad presentation does not >> excuse bad presentations by DGT. Also, Rossi has never agreed to come to a >> conference, whereas the DGT people have come to them, and made video >> presentations. These presentations raised more questions than they >> answered. DGT agreed to come to the recent MIT symposium but they cancelled >> at the last minute, which is unprofessional. >> >> >> It's so full of holes that we can hardly exclude cheating from any of >>> them. >>> >> >> I disagree. I think that some of Rossi's tests were solid. I see no holes >> in the ELFORSK tests. No skeptic has published a credible critique of the >> ELFORSK test as far as I know. The only critiques I have seen are so bad >> they show that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. >> >> >> >> >>> For me, at least DGT, this is mostly bad mouth by Jed, due his naivete >>> in dealing with business. >>> >> >> I have been accused of many things, but naivete is not among them. The >> business model described here by Axil Axil is that companies such as >> General Electric or Boeing have succeeded by filching small sums of money >> from contractors. That is not true. I have dealt with these companies and I >> am sure they pay their bills. >> >> I am quite sure Boeing would not be a profitable major corporation if >> their main source of revenue was to steal $1,400 at a time from people like >> me. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
